nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Second Chamber
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Category:ForumCategory:Congress The Second Chamber is one of the two chambers of the Lovian Congress, the federal legislative branch. Unlike in other nations, the lower chamber serves as a room for debating and compromising, and the higher chamber is where Members of the Congress vote bills that have passed through the First Chamber. All inhabitants are allowed entry to the Congress, though only Members of the Congress have the right to actively participate and vote. Older proposals Alcohol consumption * Article 12 - Alcohol and Narcotics Consumption Regulations Act *# The term "alcoholic beverage" covers every drink that contains ethanol, commonly known as alcohol. Alcohol is a psychoactive drug that has a depressant effect. A high blood alcohol reduces attention and slows reaction speed. Alcoholic beverages can be addictive. *#The term "narcotics" covers every substance that alters body functions. Narcotics can be addictive. *# Alcoholic beverages shall not be sold to persons who have not yet reached the age of 16 years. *## Both the buyer and the person selling the alcoholic beverage to a person who has not yet reached the age of 16 years are considered to be violating the Federal Law. *# Narcotics shall not be sold to any person*## Both the buyer and the person selling the narcotics are considered to be violating the Federal Law. *# Spirits (unsweetened, distilled, alcoholic beverages that have an alcohol content of at least 20% ABV) shall not be sold to persons who have not yet reached the age of 18 years. *## Both the buyer and the person selling the alcoholic beverage to a minor are considered to be violating the Federal Law. *# The use of alcoholic beverages and narcotics is forbidden by the Alcohol and Narcotics Regulations Act of the Federal Law, supported by Congress: *## In all governmental buildings, including federal properties, state properties and properties of the city, town, neighborhood, or hamlet. *## By employees in all educational institutions during class hours, unless the purpose of a particular course is to educate about alcoholic beverages or narcotics. *### The use of alcoholic beverages and narcotics in this case is restricted to the absolute minimum. Courses will be dismissed by the Royal Educational Aims Council when this law is violated twice. *### Persons receiving education should be prohibited from consuming alcohol or using narcotics in the surroundings and inside educational institutes by employees of the latter one. *## By any person whose professional occupation it is to transport other people. No alcoholic beverages or narcotics shall be consumed during the period starting two three hours before the job officially commences, and until the moment the job officially ends. *### This includes people working on ferries and aeroplanes as well. *## By any person whose professional occupation it is to safeguard other people's security. No alcoholic beverages or narcotics shall be consumed during the period starting two hours before the job officially commences, and until the moment the job officially ends. *## By any person during job hours. *## By any person doing voluntary work *# Every Lovian person, company, or organization who owns or manages a building, room, or public place has the right to prohibit the use of alcoholic beverages within that space, supported by Local Police authorities in case of disobedience. *# A high blood alcohol content is referred to as drunkenness. *## Each person operating a vehicle while under the influece of alcohol violates the Federal Law. *### When a driver's blood alcohol concentration is measured to be 0.05% or more at the moment of control and within half an hour of the moment when this person was halted by police authorities, this person is considered to have driven under the influence of alcohol, and has thus violated the Federal Law. *### A person transporting other people as a professional occupation may not have a blood alcohol concentration of higher than 0.01% during job hours. *## Public drunkenness is prohibited by the Federal Law. *### Each person in a public space whose behavior is uncommon and who does not seem to be able to think clearly and act accordingly and whose blood alcoholic concentration is measured to be 0.08% or more, is considered to be under the influence of alcohol, and can be arrested by police authorities. *### No measures in the form of a financial penalty should be taken against persons accused of being in the state of drunkenness, as the crime itself is malum prohibitum. Additions are in red. SjorskingmaWikistad 11:17, July 1, 2010 (UTC) PRO # SjorskingmaWikistad 13:53, July 3, 2010 (UTC) # expanding this law was a great idea - please note that when this gets through you are still allowed to groom some pot and smoke it at home. 05:45, July 5, 2010 (UTC) #... CONTRA # --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:59, July 4, 2010 (UTC) (alcohol is a perfect way to help people when they can't perform well for a public, so a presentation. Limited use of it therefore should be allowed at schools) #:If you have fear to appear before a public I seriously doubt if the classroom is a fit location for you. Besides, such fear is an irrational feeling that should be handled psychologically instead of through the use of alcohol. If you had asked an exception for stand-up comedians I could have followed but the classroom is way too important. 06:50, July 4, 2010 (UTC) #::So if you fear presentations you should simply quit school? Well that makes sense.. Skip classes because the law says so :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:42, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Separate article needed, I think. This should get back to the First Chamber. Martha Van Ghent 09:08, July 30, 2010 (UTC) # I am totally in favor of narcotics regulation. This law, however, lacks a few necessities before being signed into law. #:Because it is important that we know what to do with this bill when it gets back to the First Chamber, I'll give some examples of what I think should change. First of all, the definition is not accurate: even coffee and sugar are narcotics then! We could use Wikipedia here. #: Then, there are formulations like: "Narcotics shall not be sold to any person." If we choose to write a separate bill for narcotics, we could easily build up a proper structure that fits the subjects. Now, it looks like the narcotics addition was entirely modeled after the alcohol text; and it renders strange clauses. #: The part about schools and so might need some rewriting too. I think we ought to be tougher on the abuse of alcohol and narcotics in school environments. @OWTB: I disagree with your "a drink before the test" theory. We would actually be conditioning these pupils! 06:48, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # what HRH said. 16:42, July 31, 2010 (UTC) #... #... ABSTAIN # due to neutralityJon Johnson 14:56, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # too much regulation Harold Freeman 15:28, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # the rather cold reactions of my fellow MOTC made me doubt my original eagerness. 09:11, July 30, 2010 (UTC) # Following my chairman. Percival E. Galahad 12:36, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # I would vote no but it is fairly well written! But Legalize Hemp but say that it can only be smoked in a persons home! Marcus Villanova 23:19, July 31, 2010 (UTC) COMMENTS ... This bill didn't manage to get enough votes to pass. It will not be taken up in the Federal Law. 08:52, August 1, 2010 (UTC) Customs bill * Article 13 - Customs Act *# To ensure the border control of Lovian borders the Lovian Border Control is erected under the Federal Police Act, supported by Congress and the Department of Foreign Affairs. *# The Lovian Border Control is charged with the following duties: *## Safety matters transgressing state borders together with the Federal Police. *## Controll matters transgressing state borders together with the Federal Police. *### The Lovian Border Control is therefore appointed to check passports of any person entering or leaving the country. *### The Lovian Border Control is therefore appointed to keep track of any person entering or leaving the country. *# The Lovian Border Control has delegations in all states and is always prepared to help local authorities. *# The Lovian Border Control is headed by the Federal Head of Border Control, appointed by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. SjorskingmaWikistad 22:05, July 1, 2010 (UTC) PRO # SjorskingmaWikistad 13:53, July 3, 2010 (UTC) # --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:00, July 4, 2010 (UTC) (though no direct need) # , since it helps us become a more realistic country. 06:55, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Jon Johnson 14:54, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Harold Freeman 15:29, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Christina Evans 12:03, July 14, 2010 (UTC) # Marcus Villanova 18:38, July 25, 2010 (UTC) #... CONTRA # As a Waldener, I stand for simplicity in the law. This is making things LESS SIMPLE. We already have a federally organized police authority! Martha Van Ghent 09:09, July 30, 2010 (UTC) ## Plus it would tax the middle class, i see what he's getting act so i abstained! Marcus Villanova 20:47, August 2, 2010 (UTC) # Guys, we have a federal police. I am at the very moment re-writing that law as part of the huge state reform. With little effort, we could incorporate border control, passport checks... into that law. The Federal Police could easily do that. Please reconsider your votes MOTCs. Signing this bill into law only complicates our police system. 06:30, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # Expansion of the FP sounds like a more solid solution. 07:37, July 31, 2010 (UTC) #: I can promise you it is. The bill is written and it looks like a fine piece of legislation. 07:42, July 31, 2010 (UTC) #:: It is a good substitute indeed. Percival E. Galahad 12:56, July 31, 2010 (UTC) #::: Thnks. 14:20, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # Percival E. Galahad 12:37, July 31, 2010 (UTC) (Not following my chairman.) # Martha is totally right here. we shouldn't make MORE police forces, we should make LESS! efficiency matters. 16:43, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # As a former Secretary of Welfare, -- 05:35, August 1, 2010 (UTC) #... ABSTAIN # After a little think, I might say that this will only make things more difficult Jon Johnson 20:12, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # Re-thinking... It's okay but not it just makes another needless thing that will ultimatly be put down to the Taxpayers! I would vote "Contra" but i see what your trying to get at. Marcus Villanova 20:46, August 2, 2010 (UTC) COMMENTS ... This bill didn't manage to get enough votes to pass. It will not be taken up in the Federal Law. 07:08, August 3, 2010 (UTC) Copyright bill * Article 14 - Copyright Act *#Copyright and copyright works *##Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this act in the following descriptions of work *###original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, *###sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes, and *###the typographical arrangement of published editions. *##In this act “copyright work” means a work of any of those descriptions in which copyright subsists. *##Copyright does not subsist in a work unless the requirements of this act, with respect to qualification for copyright protection, are met *#Rights subsisting in copyright works *##The owner of the copyright in a work of any description has the exclusive right to do the acts specified below as the acts restricted by the copyright in a work of that description. *###The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this act, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the Lovia *####to copy the work *####to issue copies of the work to the public *####to perform, show or play the work in public *####to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service *####to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (Under discussion) SjorskingmaWikistad 22:16, July 1, 2010 (UTC) - This bill is purely fictional, and isn't of any importance for the wiki users SjorskingmaWikistad 13:49, July 3, 2010 (UTC) PRO # SjorskingmaWikistad 13:52, July 3, 2010 (UTC) # It seems fairly alright to me. Percival E. Galahad 12:50, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # Seems okay! Marcus Villanova 23:20, July 31, 2010 (UTC) #... CONTRA # --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:03, July 4, 2010 (UTC) (copyright is the biggest nonsense mankind has every created. In mediaevel times people were very glad if their work was copied or adjusted, because it is a sign that you are doing something good. Copyright is a big attack on creativity and the possibilities of creating something) # I believe this is the first thing OWTB and me fully agree on. Copyright suffocates creativity; new works of art are always inspired on culture as a whole. Try copyleft as an alternative. (i.e. drop the last line) 06:53, July 4, 2010 (UTC) #:Since you dropped the last line I'm reconsidering my vote. 14:44, July 4, 2010 (UTC) #::Stays a no, this proposal needs rethinking/expansion. 07:22, August 6, 2010 (UTC) #... ABSTAIN # without that last line there is not much too it Harold Freeman 15:30, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Agree. 08:49, July 25, 2010 (UTC) # Martha Van Ghent 09:09, July 30, 2010 (UTC) #:why do you guys abstain..? i don't know how to vote on this bill. it's quite unconvincing. 16:44, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # Jon Johnson 20:13, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # 19:27, August 5, 2010 (UTC). since i don't get what this bill actually does, i'd rather not vote. therefore: abstentioN. 19:27, August 5, 2010 (UTC) COMMENTS I believe we ought to re-think copyrights. I think many Lovians would favor a revolutionary new system, perhaps some form of copyleft, and perhaps somebody who's well-read in property law could do some suggestions. 14:22, July 31, 2010 (UTC) :I had a portion of property rights in law classes. Perhaps I could sit together with Jon (also had law)? 07:21, August 6, 2010 (UTC) This bill didn't manage to get enough votes to pass. It will not be taken up in the Federal Law. Currently some MOTC are thinking of a more appropriate version. 07:08, August 3, 2010 (UTC) Abortion bill * Article 15 - Abortion Act *# Abortion is legal throughout the entire nation of Lovia, on the following grounds. *##To save the woman's life *##To prevent grave permanent injury to the woman's physical or mental health *##Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman *##Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren) *##If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped *# When the situation doesn't meet at least one of this standards, abortion is illegal *# Abortion can only be performed in a certified hospital *## An employee of a certified hospital can't refuse to perform abortion when at least one of the grounds stated in paragraphs 1.1-1.5 are met SjorskingmaWikistad 09:11, July 2, 2010 (UTC) PRO # SjorskingmaWikistad 13:52, July 3, 2010 (UTC) # 07:07, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Jon Johnson 13:38, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Harold Freeman 15:31, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Marcus Villanova 21:26, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Christina Evans 12:04, July 14, 2010 (UTC) CONTRA # --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:06, July 4, 2010 (UTC) (it fully contradicts to the constitution, article 2. If you kill someone using abortion you take a way all the rights which are summed up in article two, so you violate the constitution.) #:I disagree. The law is believed to generally refer to 'persons' in stead of 'human beings'. Whether or not a fertilized ovum or a fetus is a human being is biological hair-splitting. But whether or not it is a person and therefore has the rights of a person, that is a clear legal issue. Corporations for instance are treated as (artificial) persons, because they act on the information provided by their surroundings. 07:06, July 4, 2010 (UTC) #::Medvedev is totally right. And when you don't remove the baby and as a result the woman dies, you have caused two kills, not one. (I know you are leader of the Christian party ) SjorskingmaWikistad 11:44, July 4, 2010 (UTC) #::Well, you can't really say whether there are persons that can rationally think without yourself, so actually then the law is only referring to you.. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:45, July 4, 2010 (UTC) #:::And now that I understand what you mean? SjorskingmaWikistad 11:55, July 4, 2010 (UTC) #::::Srry, edit conflict I guess :) Well, actually if the woman dies then she is supposed to die, because God wants her to die. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:15, July 4, 2010 (UTC) #:::::Don't you go Descarting on me; the base premises of behaviorism states that outer signs suffice to show that a subject interacts with its surroundings. I don't want to go arguing about the nature of the mind so lets call it a draw. 13:37, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # I am not being conservative; I support abortion rights. This bill however lacks sophistication. Medical issues require medical knowledge and sophistication. 08:50, July 25, 2010 (UTC) # Dimitri is totally right here. There are more complex situations that are not even being dealt with. Martha Van Ghent 09:10, July 30, 2010 (UTC) # Abortion should be possible for every woman. Percival E. Galahad 12:51, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # 16:49, July 31, 2010 (UTC) #: dear progressives (i'm talking to you guys from the CPL.NM!!!), #: why the **** do you support this conservative bill??? #: signed, a perplexed Waldener, 16:49, July 31, 2010 (UTC) #::Could you give some info on what you mean by what you just said? Jon Johnson 20:15, July 31, 2010 (UTC) #:::i'll tell you. This is a map of the abortion legislationn in the world. Those blueish countries are those in which abortion is legal, even on regular request. as you can see it's not just the ultra-progressive countries like Sweden and the netherlands; it's also catholic spain, tunisia, turkey, even Nepal. now this bill here does not even allow abortion on request. it explicitly says "abortion is illegal", unless in those few situations like "maternal life, health, mental health, rape, fetal defects, and/or socioeconomic factors"... That's what i call conservative. if this bill is passed, we are at the same level as Egypt, Jemen, Indonesia and the Congo. 20:40, July 31, 2010 (UTC) #::::Thanks, i didn't notice, I will abstain myself from this voting, since I'm fully supporting abortion! and thanks again I must have raid the bill wrongly! Jon Johnson 08:02, August 1, 2010 (UTC) # As dimi Said I'm not conservative but a woman should have an abortion for those reasons or if she wants. But not during or after the Third Trimester!Marcus Villanova 22:21, July 31, 2010 (UTC) #: I could not agree more! -- 05:34, August 1, 2010 (UTC) # -- 05:34, August 1, 2010 (UTC) # 08:50, August 1, 2010 (UTC) #... ABSTAIN # Jon Johnson 08:04, August 1, 2010 (UTC) Read the discussion between me and andy (thanks again mate) #... COMMENTS Could you ad that no certified hospital or physician can refuse to perform an abortion when the legal conditions are met? 17:47, July 3, 2010 (UTC) :Well, I think this can't be said. What can be put in the law that a hospital can't refuse, but an employee can. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:16, July 4, 2010 (UTC) (though I still believ abortion should not be done!) ::Yes what yuri said! Marcus Villanova 21:51, July 3, 2010 (UTC) This bill didn't manage to get enough votes to pass. It will not be taken up in the Federal Law. 08:54, August 1, 2010 (UTC) Census Law (Try number two) So i messed up on the first one lets forget about that one. This was written by Semyon but since he is not a MOTC i will propose it. Please if you have a problem with it re-edit it in the First Chamber. But while you are voting censuses don't need to be complicated just a simple head count of people! So here's the law! An Act to make provision for the taking of a census for Lovia and for obtaining statistical information concerning the population of Lovia. Regulations concerning the appointment of a census taker. #A census must take place in August and December of every year. #The Prime Minister must appoint a Census Taker at those times, whose duty it will be to carry out the census. #The Prime Minister must give the Census Taker an official list of all settlements to ensure clarity. Regulations concerning the taking of the Census. #The Census Taker must count each residence once and only once. If an inhabitant owns multiple residences, they will be counted multiple times. #The population must be calculated using the system already in place in Lovia. #From the data obtained, official figures concerning the population will be calculated and published. Marcus Villanova 13:22, July 5, 2010 (UTC) 'Voting' 'Pro' # Please we need a census! Marcus Villanova 13:27, July 5, 2010 (UTC) # though I would like to say that it is better not to throw proposals in here with the kind remark we can discuss in the First Chamber. Commenting/altering should occur before voting. 17:12, July 5, 2010 (UTC) #: True. 08:51, July 25, 2010 (UTC) # --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:06, July 6, 2010 (UTC) # SjorskingmaWikistad 07:49, July 6, 2010 (UTC) # Christina Evans 12:06, July 14, 2010 (UTC) #... 'Contra' # Back to the First Chamber with it. July is the worth month to do anything, for instance. Martha Van Ghent 09:12, July 30, 2010 (UTC) # 16:49, July 31, 2010 (UTC) ((Go martha! )) ## I'll change it to August! Marcus Villanova 18:25, August 1, 2010 (UTC) #... Abstention # as miss Martha pointed out another time-table would be more appropriate Harold Freeman 09:30, July 30, 2010 (UTC) # Jon Johnson 12:28, July 30, 2010 (UTC) We really need a census but as Martha said the month are not the best ones. # 06:31, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # I only now realize this (due to a comment in the pub) but the bill doesn't speak of issues such as people moving etc. Perhaps we should also try to integrate this in the process concerning state elections (which are of course state-bound). 07:34, July 31, 2010 (UTC) ## But if they move it would be counted in the next Census! Marcus Villanova 22:16, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # Percival E. Galahad 12:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # ... Comments Are there any?I think we just need aa good census for lovia that helps everyone! Marcus Villanova 13:27, July 5, 2010 (UTC) :I have, did you notice, that you'll have to wait to months to get this through? Everyone is gone... You have time enough to discuss it in the first chamber Jon Johnson 21:47, July 5, 2010 (UTC) ::I must say there is indeed a strange phenomenon lately that I like to call High Speed Proposing. We have a lot of proposals while a lot of MOTC are on holiday trips. I have no doubt everything will turn out just fine in the end though, we just need some patience. 07:50, July 6, 2010 (UTC) We have waited long enough. SjorskingmaWikistad 09:35, July 13, 2010 (UTC) Did you speak with Dimi on this one, you've been telling people to buy extra houses and saying bills have been excepted, i don't think you have this power? Marcus Villanova 16:26, July 13, 2010 (UTC) :Any MOTC can say a bill is approved as long as it actually is. And sorry, but time is of no importance - a bill can only be approved if the result is definitive. Four out of fourteen votes isn't enough. 07:35, July 14, 2010 (UTC) ::Could we start - unofficially - collecting the data anyway? If the law isn't passed by the end of July, we'll have to wait till December. Semyon E. Breyev 14:25, July 16, 2010 (UTC) :::Make it august and January then... Jon Johnson 14:31, July 16, 2010 (UTC) This bill didn't manage to get enough votes to pass. It will not be taken up in the Federal Law. 07:08, August 3, 2010 (UTC) Announcement I will soon clean up the above proposals which are not accepted. All MOTC have one more day to comment or change their vote; we need room for newer proposals such as our Political Reform and the Economic Involvement Act. 07:25, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :Good, you do that :) 15:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC) 2010 State Reform Bill I will not post the full monty here in the 2nd Chamber. I will create voting lists for each of the seven parts. There will be links to the articles under review. If you have questions, just ask. 15:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC) When abstaining, please explain why. Abstention is the wish not to vote. If you disagree with the bill, it is better to oppose it than to abstain. 15:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Content (1): Structural change (Constitution Art. 4) CONTENT: click here MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+ PRO * ... CONTRA * ... ABSTENTION * ... Content (2): Competencies (Constitution Art. 5) CONTENT: click here MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+ PRO * ... CONTRA * ... ABSTENTION * ... Content (3): Amending the law (Constitution Art. 6-7) CONTENT: click here MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+ MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+ PRO * ... CONTRA * ... ABSTENTION * ... Content (4): Elections (Constitution Art. 8) CONTENT: click here MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+ PRO * ... CONTRA * ... ABSTENTION * ... Content (5): Trials (Constitution Art. 9-10) CONTENT: click here MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+ PRO * ... CONTRA * ... ABSTENTION * ... Content (6): Police (FL Art. 5-6) CONTENT: click here MAJORITY REQUIRED: 50%+ PRO * ... CONTRA * ... ABSTENTION * ... Content (7): Places (FL Art. 7-8) CONTENT: click here MAJORITY REQUIRED: 50%+ PRO * ... CONTRA * ... ABSTENTION * ...